Sam Smith and Normani’s ‘Dancing With a Stranger’ Copyright Battle Heads Toward Trial

Sam Smith and Normani may have to let a jury decide whether their hit song “Dancing With a Stranger” crossed the line into copyright infringement. After years of legal back-and-forth, a federal judge has signaled that he is not ready to throw out the case, leaving the 2019 pop hit under the legal microscope.

During a hearing on Friday, September 11, U.S. District Judge Wesley L. Hsu said he was inclined to deny the artists’ latest request for summary judgment. In simple terms, that means the case could move forward to trial, where jurors would weigh competing expert opinions about Smith and Normani’s song and an earlier track with an almost identical title.

According to Rolling Stone, songwriters Jordan Vincent, Christopher Miranda, and Rosco Banlaoi, operating through Sound and Color, LLC, filed the lawsuit in 2022. They claim that Smith and Normani’s multi-platinum collaboration copied the title, chorus, hook, and musical composition of “Dancing With Strangers,” a song they created in 2015.

Smith and Normani have denied copying the track. Their legal team argues that the artists created their song independently and that the musical elements identified by the plaintiffs are common features that cannot be claimed exclusively under copyright law.

With both sides holding their ground, the question now is whether a jury will get the final say.

This legal dispute has already experienced what seemed like a closing chapter.

In 2023, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit after concluding that the phrase “dancing with a stranger” and the musical elements identified by the plaintiffs were not legally protected by copyright.

That decision, however, did not survive an appeal. In 2025, the Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling, determining that a jury should decide whether the two songs are substantially similar.

The decision reopened the door for the lawsuit, allowing the plaintiffs to continue pursuing their claims. Smith and Normani later made another attempt to end the case in July, but Judge Hsu’s tentative ruling has kept the dispute alive.

The judge’s comments during the September hearing suggest that the case is not something he believes can be settled simply by reviewing the evidence himself.

“I reject the defendants’ attempt to categorically exclude the testimony of the two experts from the plaintiff,” Hsu said from the bench. “While I don’t agree with the conclusions of the experts, that is not a decision for me.”

Hsu explained that the experts had provided enough foundation for their opinions to be considered. Although he questioned their conclusions, he said he could not determine as a matter of law that copying had not occurred.

That distinction matters. The judge does not have to agree with an expert’s opinion to allow the testimony into court. Instead, the question is whether the evidence is sufficient to be heard and evaluated during a trial.

Alfred J. Fluehr, an attorney for Vincent, Christopher Miranda, and Rosco Banlaoi, summed up the plaintiffs’ position in straightforward terms.

“This is a musicological dispute. That’s for a jury.”

In other words, the case is about how the songs sound, how their musical elements compare, and whether those similarities point to copyright infringement.

While the case may be heading toward trial, that does not mean the plaintiffs have an easy road ahead.

The songwriters previously argued that Smith and Normani’s collaborators could have accessed the 2015 song through widespread distribution. They have since abandoned that argument, meaning they must now prove that the two songs are “strikingly similar.”

That is a higher standard than ordinary substantial similarity.

Copyright cases involving music often turn on whether the similarities between two works involve protected creative expression or common musical building blocks. A melody, chord progression, rhythm, or lyrical phrase may sound familiar without automatically belonging to one songwriter.

The plaintiffs’ challenge is to show that the similarities between their song and Smith and Normani’s track are significant enough to meet the legal requirements of their claim.

Defense attorney Peter Anderson argued that the alleged overlap amounts to only four or five elements that are “commonplace in the musical world.”

That argument reflects the defense’s broader position: Smith and Normani’s song may share certain musical features with the earlier work, but those features are not necessarily original enough to receive copyright protection.

Anderson also questioned whether the 2015 song itself qualifies for copyright protection because it allegedly includes unauthorized samples of Masters at Work’s “The Ha Dance” and Lyn Collins’ “Think (About It).”

That issue adds another layer to an already complicated case. If the earlier song contains material that was allegedly taken from other recordings, the defense appears to be arguing that the plaintiffs’ copyright claims should face additional scrutiny.

Hsu, however, did not appear convinced that the sampling issue automatically ended the case. The judge noted that the plaintiffs contend the disputed hook was not itself sampled.

That leaves the court with another question to consider: Which parts of the 2015 song, if any, can be protected, and what exactly are the plaintiffs claiming Smith and Normani copied?

The copyright dispute is not limited to the two songs at the center of the lawsuit. Older music also enters the conversation, highlighting how song titles and musical phrases can appear across different eras.

Cyndi Lauper released a song titled “Dancing With a Stranger” in 1989. Meanwhile, Regina’s 1997 track “Dancing With an Angel” includes a descending melodic phrase that the defense has cited.

These examples do not automatically resolve the lawsuit, but they add context to the larger question of originality in music. A title that sounds distinctive to one listener may have appeared elsewhere, while a musical phrase that feels recognizable may be part of a much broader musical tradition.

That is part of what makes copyright disputes involving popular music so complicated. Songs can share certain sounds, structures, or phrases without necessarily being copies of one another. The legal system must determine when those similarities cross the line into infringement.

For Smith and Normani, that distinction could become the focus of a future trial.

Judge Hsu’s tentative ruling does not represent a final jury verdict or establish that Smith and Normani infringed copyright. It means the judge is inclined to reject their latest effort to have the case resolved before trial.

The plaintiffs still have to meet the required legal standard, including proving that the songs are “strikingly similar” after abandoning their previous access argument.

If the case proceeds, jurors could be asked to listen closely to both songs, review expert testimony, and decide whether the similarities involve protected creative expression or musical elements that are common in the industry.

That could make for a particularly detailed courtroom battle, especially with a multi-platinum pop record at the center of the dispute.

For now, “Dancing With a Stranger” is facing a legal encore. The song may have been released in 2019, but its copyright story is still finding new verses.